Thread
Favorite Software Developers/Least Favorites?
Just thought I'd take a survey here to see what everyone likes...
My top 3 favorites:
1. Broderbund: Print Shop, Kid Pix, Banner Mania, Mac Globe, Carmen Sandiego, Shufflepuck Cafe, the Cyan titles (Spelunx, Myst)...the list goes on. Probably my favorite company of all time for software.
2. Claris: MacWrite II/Pro, MacDraw II, ClarisWorks, Resolve, and FileMaker II were excellent.
3. Interplay: can you say Battle Chess? Mario Teaches Typing is pretty sweet too.
My bottom 3:
1. Sierra: I don't recall them ever developing a good game for Mac...the one I recall the best was one from elementary school called Mixed Up Mother Goose...I used to hate when we had to play this in computer class because I could never figure it out and the teacher wouldn't give me the manual to study...
2. Real Networks: I've never liked Real Player software and I think a lot of you can share the same feelings about this.
3. Software Toolworks: their stuff just always seemed second rate to me.
I'm neutral on Microsoft. While there are some products of theirs that I don't really like (Office 2007, Vista, Word 6 for Mac, WorksSuite 99, Access) there are also a lot that I like (Excel, Word 98 for Mac, FrontPage, Microsoft Learning DOS, DOS 5/6, Works 2.0 for Windows, Windows Entertainment Packs). Some of their stuff I'm completely neutral on (IE, Works for Mac, Windows 95, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 3.1). I know a lot of folks will probably say it's in their bottom three, but you have to look at all the positives they've come out with. Remember--Microsoft brought you Vista, Apple brought you System 6.0.6.
My top 3 favorites:
1. Broderbund: Print Shop, Kid Pix, Banner Mania, Mac Globe, Carmen Sandiego, Shufflepuck Cafe, the Cyan titles (Spelunx, Myst)...the list goes on. Probably my favorite company of all time for software.
2. Claris: MacWrite II/Pro, MacDraw II, ClarisWorks, Resolve, and FileMaker II were excellent.
3. Interplay: can you say Battle Chess? Mario Teaches Typing is pretty sweet too.
My bottom 3:
1. Sierra: I don't recall them ever developing a good game for Mac...the one I recall the best was one from elementary school called Mixed Up Mother Goose...I used to hate when we had to play this in computer class because I could never figure it out and the teacher wouldn't give me the manual to study...
2. Real Networks: I've never liked Real Player software and I think a lot of you can share the same feelings about this.
3. Software Toolworks: their stuff just always seemed second rate to me.
I'm neutral on Microsoft. While there are some products of theirs that I don't really like (Office 2007, Vista, Word 6 for Mac, WorksSuite 99, Access) there are also a lot that I like (Excel, Word 98 for Mac, FrontPage, Microsoft Learning DOS, DOS 5/6, Works 2.0 for Windows, Windows Entertainment Packs). Some of their stuff I'm completely neutral on (IE, Works for Mac, Windows 95, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows 3.1). I know a lot of folks will probably say it's in their bottom three, but you have to look at all the positives they've come out with. Remember--Microsoft brought you Vista, Apple brought you System 6.0.6.
Top 3:
Apple, for creating HyperCard and Clarisworks. It is also easy to respect a company that ships products like Graphing Calculator and Grapher with their operating system. Hey, playing with a cool calculator a heck of a lot deeper than playing solitaire.
Microsoft, let's face it: Microsoft's business model allowed the personal computer industry to flourish in an era when companies like Apple, Atari, and Commodore were selfishly trying to control the platform. They also made some pretty decent products (Word 5.x for the Mac and Windows NT/2k/XP among them).
FLOSS, for creating a universal banner that many bickering Unix vendors were unified under. This allowed Unix to continue on as the only major competing user interface metaphor to the WIMP model adopted by Apple and Microsoft. They also provided a social model where hobbiests could continue to be movers and shakers in the computer industry.
Bottom 3:
Apple, for being the roller-coaster of the computer industry. Their major products have used four CPU architectures and five operating systems. They, like Commodore, also managed to blow an (approximately) decade long lead due to horrid project mis-management.
Microsoft, for producing some of the least imaginative, most bloated, and dangerously buggy software from a major software development house. Just compare many Microsoft products to their contemporaries to see what I mean. Their business tactics were also savage, resulting in the premature death of many interesting competing products.
FLOSS, for believing that that the seat of power was within their reach and all but abandoning the Unix philosophy to try and achieve that crowning glory. Also for diminishing the status of major Unix vendors -- which will end up weakening Unix's role on servers and super-computers in the long term.
Apple, for creating HyperCard and Clarisworks. It is also easy to respect a company that ships products like Graphing Calculator and Grapher with their operating system. Hey, playing with a cool calculator a heck of a lot deeper than playing solitaire.
Microsoft, let's face it: Microsoft's business model allowed the personal computer industry to flourish in an era when companies like Apple, Atari, and Commodore were selfishly trying to control the platform. They also made some pretty decent products (Word 5.x for the Mac and Windows NT/2k/XP among them).
FLOSS, for creating a universal banner that many bickering Unix vendors were unified under. This allowed Unix to continue on as the only major competing user interface metaphor to the WIMP model adopted by Apple and Microsoft. They also provided a social model where hobbiests could continue to be movers and shakers in the computer industry.
Bottom 3:
Apple, for being the roller-coaster of the computer industry. Their major products have used four CPU architectures and five operating systems. They, like Commodore, also managed to blow an (approximately) decade long lead due to horrid project mis-management.
Microsoft, for producing some of the least imaginative, most bloated, and dangerously buggy software from a major software development house. Just compare many Microsoft products to their contemporaries to see what I mean. Their business tactics were also savage, resulting in the premature death of many interesting competing products.
FLOSS, for believing that that the seat of power was within their reach and all but abandoning the Unix philosophy to try and achieve that crowning glory. Also for diminishing the status of major Unix vendors -- which will end up weakening Unix's role on servers and super-computers in the long term.
Top 3:
Adobe, for rolling out the Photoshop and professional media development lines used so commonly today. Their vision saw us meet the image editor and take it about 5 steps further.
Connectix, for somehow making a PC emulator for the Mac that ran at a decent speed, was fully capable of just about everything the PC could support and just seemed to get better and better every time, they coded it well and never let themselves or the users down with a release.
FLOSS, to an extent. The influence this has had changed the industry forever, and in turn delivered some great examples of products from operating systems (BSD), to office suites and even games. However this community at times is known to get a little big headed, just look at the massive number of users who believe Linux is a good first timers/beginners operating system, when clearly it isn't at that stage yet. That aside though, the majority aren't like that.
Bottom 3:
Apple. They are, in my book, fairly poor when it comes not only to their mis-management of architectures which has seen a rollercoaster ride across the entire span of the Macintosh, but also placing eye candy over design and requirements (eg. iPhoto 6, Leopard). Finally, their stance on cutoff points in frustrating, a good example being Leopard, there is absolutely no reason it shouldn't run on Dual 800s or even just all G4's outright, it's planned obsolescence and I hate it. Period.
I'm not sure of the other two. They will come to me eventually though.
Adobe, for rolling out the Photoshop and professional media development lines used so commonly today. Their vision saw us meet the image editor and take it about 5 steps further.
Connectix, for somehow making a PC emulator for the Mac that ran at a decent speed, was fully capable of just about everything the PC could support and just seemed to get better and better every time, they coded it well and never let themselves or the users down with a release.
FLOSS, to an extent. The influence this has had changed the industry forever, and in turn delivered some great examples of products from operating systems (BSD), to office suites and even games. However this community at times is known to get a little big headed, just look at the massive number of users who believe Linux is a good first timers/beginners operating system, when clearly it isn't at that stage yet. That aside though, the majority aren't like that.
Bottom 3:
Apple. They are, in my book, fairly poor when it comes not only to their mis-management of architectures which has seen a rollercoaster ride across the entire span of the Macintosh, but also placing eye candy over design and requirements (eg. iPhoto 6, Leopard). Finally, their stance on cutoff points in frustrating, a good example being Leopard, there is absolutely no reason it shouldn't run on Dual 800s or even just all G4's outright, it's planned obsolescence and I hate it. Period.
I'm not sure of the other two. They will come to me eventually though.
Apple, making software idiot proof since 1984 
Seriously... Apple, because its only company that makes its software and hardware.
Sony, because their big a** CRT's are awesome.
Epson, because their printer's work forever and their ink is cheap.
Firewire, because USB sucks.
Pioneer, because their equipment blows stuff off of my shelves.
Seriously... Apple, because its only company that makes its software and hardware.
Sony, because their big a** CRT's are awesome.
Epson, because their printer's work forever and their ink is cheap.
Firewire, because USB sucks.
Pioneer, because their equipment blows stuff off of my shelves.
Top 3
Adobe - many advancements over the past few years
Sourceforge!!! Excellent source for free stuff that works great
Apple (pre 1999) - Most software from apple was nice during this period
Bottom 3
Microsoft - Vista is a travesty of an OS PERIOD. It is a nightmare to customize and tailor to the needs of my clients. Microsoft works (in the past) ironically doesn't work with office. Office 08 for mac has weird and stupid incompatibilities with Windows exchange servers... ugh... theer's plenty more...
Apple - Lets face it - OSX is a memory hog and OSX would be SIGNIFICANTLY faster without all the polished, candy buttons & useless effects. Give me a skin with normal 2D buttons and I would be grateful. The intel switch - making your platform obsolete is a great marketing job, but screws people who bought oh lets say... G5s for 4+ grand (not me). Cyberdog, opendoc.... need I say more?
AOL - Give me a friggin' break. AOL has always been a turd and it continues to do so. If it wasn't for the computer illiterate this company would cease to exist.
Adobe - many advancements over the past few years
Sourceforge!!! Excellent source for free stuff that works great
Apple (pre 1999) - Most software from apple was nice during this period
Bottom 3
Microsoft - Vista is a travesty of an OS PERIOD. It is a nightmare to customize and tailor to the needs of my clients. Microsoft works (in the past) ironically doesn't work with office. Office 08 for mac has weird and stupid incompatibilities with Windows exchange servers... ugh... theer's plenty more...
Apple - Lets face it - OSX is a memory hog and OSX would be SIGNIFICANTLY faster without all the polished, candy buttons & useless effects. Give me a skin with normal 2D buttons and I would be grateful. The intel switch - making your platform obsolete is a great marketing job, but screws people who bought oh lets say... G5s for 4+ grand (not me). Cyberdog, opendoc.... need I say more?
AOL - Give me a friggin' break. AOL has always been a turd and it continues to do so. If it wasn't for the computer illiterate this company would cease to exist.
Beagle Brothers were pretty cool!
I mostly like Adobe's software, though they're quite expensive.
Apple software is generally pretty well designed and I'm mostly in favour of their "idiot-proofing" (I think most complaints about that come from users who are really too advanced to be using iWhatever in the first place).
My least favourite developers are amateur OS X java programmers who manage to make their windows too small so you can't access the quit button and then you have to force quit because they didn't include a quit in the application menu and then when you do manage to quit the program (that never actually did anything in the first place) you suffer random crashes that get worse and worse until you have to reinstall the system.
I mostly like Adobe's software, though they're quite expensive.
Apple software is generally pretty well designed and I'm mostly in favour of their "idiot-proofing" (I think most complaints about that come from users who are really too advanced to be using iWhatever in the first place).
My least favourite developers are amateur OS X java programmers who manage to make their windows too small so you can't access the quit button and then you have to force quit because they didn't include a quit in the application menu and then when you do manage to quit the program (that never actually did anything in the first place) you suffer random crashes that get worse and worse until you have to reinstall the system.
i need to add my least favorite....
Epson software, because it has this OS 9/X UI and is very slow.
Quicktime MP2, Airport 802.11n. useless pay little money for something so tiny that should be included with the mac/quicktime software.
Microsoft, yes they do make a few good things, but ever since ballamer came along they to be going down a bit more.
Epson software, because it has this OS 9/X UI and is very slow.
Quicktime MP2, Airport 802.11n. useless pay little money for something so tiny that should be included with the mac/quicktime software.
Microsoft, yes they do make a few good things, but ever since ballamer came along they to be going down a bit more.
Anyone who provides their apps as preinstalled demo craplets on a consumer PC must go into the least favourite category. In particular the developers of PaintShop Pro who destroyed a mid-range image editor by adding bloat.
Anything from Symantec is contemptible. Fortunately, it took the a while to kill off the Think C and Pascal developer tools.
Anything from Computer Associates -- "where good software goes to die". They killed off CricketDraw and CricketPaint. In the server world, they destroyed ArcServe (tape backup).
I like that bloke who makes Graphic Converter, because the app does exactly what is required and does not try to do too much.
I like Adobe apps a bit. PhotoShop Elements is almost right for families wishing to twek their holiday snaps. I use it at work, but I always use something else at home.
Google Earth is brilliant most of the time. The pictures of Leicester were dreadful until recently, however, so I am glad that Microsoft provides an alternative.
Anything from Symantec is contemptible. Fortunately, it took the a while to kill off the Think C and Pascal developer tools.
Anything from Computer Associates -- "where good software goes to die". They killed off CricketDraw and CricketPaint. In the server world, they destroyed ArcServe (tape backup).
I like that bloke who makes Graphic Converter, because the app does exactly what is required and does not try to do too much.
I like Adobe apps a bit. PhotoShop Elements is almost right for families wishing to twek their holiday snaps. I use it at work, but I always use something else at home.
Google Earth is brilliant most of the time. The pictures of Leicester were dreadful until recently, however, so I am glad that Microsoft provides an alternative.
The second clause is just so, so true. According to Wikipedia (correctly on this occasion), "Steve Ballmer joined Microsoft on June 11, 1980". And Microsoft have been going down so much since that date ;-)
--- Company History ---
Ballmer was taken on by MicroSoft for his marketing wisdom. Following his appointment, MicroSoft cancelled the project (code name MS-DOS) to create an operating system for the IBM 5150 PC, conserving programming resources for the more promising Commodore 64 platform. On the day that IBM executives visited MicroSoft at their headquarters, Gates and Ballmer were attending an informal drag race in their Porsches. Consequently, Digital Research won the contract for the IBM PC operating system, and CP/M-86 became the standard PC operating system between 1981 and 1995.
The launch of the MacIntosh platform in 1986, provided an opportunity for MicroSoft to rejoin the race as application developers. When personally offered pre-production MacIntosh computers by Steve Jobs, Ballmer declined, saying "If you can't deliver the graphics on a NorthStar Horizon, they ain't worth doing". He emphasised the point by eating a chair. MicroSoft's Word (word processor) and Excel (spreadsheet) applications were minor hits for the Sinclair QL.
Under Ballmer's guidance, MicroSoft resisted radical change. A skunk programme (code name Windows) to create a graphical user interface running on top of CP/M-86 was cancelled, and MicroSoft declined the opportunity to participate in IBM's OS/2 project. However, MicroSoft maintained their dominance in delivering Basic language environments for computers such as the Bulgarian Pravetz-82 Apple II clone.
OS/2 was conceived as a next generation operating system, that could use new hardware features whilst maintaining a degree of compatibility with popular standard CP/M-86 applications such as Lotus 1-2-3. Early implementations of OS/2 were clumsy and the alternative DR-GEM operating system became the standard. Today, Digital Research dominate the market for PC operating systems and for DR-GEM productivity applications.
For many years, MicroSoft survived on sales of the legacy Trafficator productor. The company is now under Chapter 11 protection whilst auditors try to sell their promising BeOS operating system for PCs.
--- Paul Allen and MicroSoft ---
Paul Allen, a founder of MicroSoft is sueing Ballmer for mismanagement of the company. From a six foot dinghy in Seattle harbour, Allen is reported to have said "What the **** has this ******* ****** done with all of my ******* ******* money. *** hole. Where the **** is the yacht that I was promised?"
Edited: GEM for Windows wrt Digital Research.
Best:
- Apple
- Panic (Transmit rocks, Audion was the best OS 9 mp3 player out there IMHO, and in general they're really nice and talented people)
- Hamrick (Vuescan is a killer app, exp. for OS X, and is updated about every five minutes [
] ]'> )
Worst:
- Quark (can't believe no one else has named them yet)
- Symantec (terrible products, huge fear-mongers in lame attempts to sell their crappy software to OS X customers)
- Intuit (Drops much of their Mac support while their CEO is on the Apple Board - Niiiiiice... [xx(] ]'> )
Best,
Matt
- Apple
- Panic (Transmit rocks, Audion was the best OS 9 mp3 player out there IMHO, and in general they're really nice and talented people)
- Hamrick (Vuescan is a killer app, exp. for OS X, and is updated about every five minutes [
] ]'> )Worst:
- Quark (can't believe no one else has named them yet)
- Symantec (terrible products, huge fear-mongers in lame attempts to sell their crappy software to OS X customers)
- Intuit (Drops much of their Mac support while their CEO is on the Apple Board - Niiiiiice... [xx(] ]'> )
Best,
Matt
Top 3:
Barebones Software - They make bbedit
Apple - Thanks of OS X. Windows what?
Ambrosia - EV Nova stole my life.
Bottom 3:
Lucas Arts - Where's the darned PPC version of Star Wars Galaxies?
Apple - What with the more reboots and Windows like way of installing updates?
Real - Their software always and without fail borked my PC's and 1 or 2 of my Macs. Will not touch with 10ft pole.
Barebones Software - They make bbedit
Apple - Thanks of OS X. Windows what?
Ambrosia - EV Nova stole my life.
Bottom 3:
Lucas Arts - Where's the darned PPC version of Star Wars Galaxies?
Apple - What with the more reboots and Windows like way of installing updates?
Real - Their software always and without fail borked my PC's and 1 or 2 of my Macs. Will not touch with 10ft pole.
Best 3: Broderbund, Ambrosia (their older games are as addictive as all Hell!), Casady&Greene (RIP :'( Btw I can't believe nobody's mentioned them yet!))
Worst 3: Symantec (the Sony of PC maintenance software developers), Real ('nuff said), Epson (great printers, but Mac support sucks)
Worst 3: Symantec (the Sony of PC maintenance software developers), Real ('nuff said), Epson (great printers, but Mac support sucks)
Favorite:
#1, BroderBund. MYST Anyone?
#2, MicroProse. Transport Tycoon is the best game I have EVER played
#3, Apple (last of them for a reason. They have been making computers obsolete faster than anyone else
Least Favorite:
#1, Microsft (although I like Windows 2k, Pro, and *sometimes* Vista, but Vista can be a PITA, on top of that, the 9x Series (Including ME) was atrocious. I mean, it was downright horrible. stability issues all over the place)
#2, Jagex (sorry, but even though they are a Java Based game for Runescape, but it got me hooked for a solid 2 years, and then they make the game horrible by making it down to about 1st grade level, despite teenagers playing it
#3, Blizzard. Although they have Diablo II for a good game, and a few others, but WoW, despite me playing it, they keep making machines obsolete quicker too (or components). it went from having 32 or 64MB VRAM (128 if you were lucky) Max, to downright needing between 256->512 to do anything halfway decent in the game. On top of that, their increased downloads for the game (mandatory) taking sometimes up to 600MB each, it's getting ridiculous. I am beginning to hate logging in because I fear having to wait forever to get the latest download...
At least they could have it load while you are in the game. what's the chance you are going to need it as soon as you log in?
#1, BroderBund. MYST Anyone?
#2, MicroProse. Transport Tycoon is the best game I have EVER played
#3, Apple (last of them for a reason. They have been making computers obsolete faster than anyone else
Least Favorite:
#1, Microsft (although I like Windows 2k, Pro, and *sometimes* Vista, but Vista can be a PITA, on top of that, the 9x Series (Including ME) was atrocious. I mean, it was downright horrible. stability issues all over the place)
#2, Jagex (sorry, but even though they are a Java Based game for Runescape, but it got me hooked for a solid 2 years, and then they make the game horrible by making it down to about 1st grade level, despite teenagers playing it
#3, Blizzard. Although they have Diablo II for a good game, and a few others, but WoW, despite me playing it, they keep making machines obsolete quicker too (or components). it went from having 32 or 64MB VRAM (128 if you were lucky) Max, to downright needing between 256->512 to do anything halfway decent in the game. On top of that, their increased downloads for the game (mandatory) taking sometimes up to 600MB each, it's getting ridiculous. I am beginning to hate logging in because I fear having to wait forever to get the latest download...
At least they could have it load while you are in the game. what's the chance you are going to need it as soon as you log in?
Honestly, I can make do with 256K of VRAM if I want colour. 8 bit on a 512 x 384 screen is fine for me. 512K is preferred so I can see 16 bit on the same screen (which I like because I like to use photos of my friends and I as backgrounds--I even dither them for my Plus).
I almost forgot about AOL...anyone remember the old days when you spent five minutes going to a forum because you had to wait for artwork to be added?
I almost forgot about AOL...anyone remember the old days when you spent five minutes going to a forum because you had to wait for artwork to be added?
The above three posts I read over and over, well said. Computers these days are just stupid hulking boxes of overpowered and overpriced junk that we wouldn't even need if developers were more code efficient and if people would actually get off these machines every once in a while and see real life, instead of trying to simulate lifelike graphics with a the GeForce 59,000,000 GTI or whatever the hell it's called.
For the record another developer I wasn't keen on in the past is David Watanabe, he's a legend when it comes to UI design but far from it when it comes to supporting his products. Now though, that i've been in his shoes, I respect him a lot more. It's no question why he doesn't handle product support well because frankly, developing for Mac users is easy, but the users always want more and more until they expect supernatural features from a single developer, and it sucks the life out of you if you're on the receiving end.
Just my 0.02c.
For the record another developer I wasn't keen on in the past is David Watanabe, he's a legend when it comes to UI design but far from it when it comes to supporting his products. Now though, that i've been in his shoes, I respect him a lot more. It's no question why he doesn't handle product support well because frankly, developing for Mac users is easy, but the users always want more and more until they expect supernatural features from a single developer, and it sucks the life out of you if you're on the receiving end.
Just my 0.02c.
There's too mucgh hate in this thread so I'm gonna just name some of my favourite OS X developers...
TextDrive (for TextMate - OS X's new BBEdit)
Plasq (for Skitch)
Red Sweater Software (for MarsEdit)
mark/Space (for Missing Sync - *the* way to fly Windows Mobile from a Mac!)
Blacktree (for Quicksilver)
Adium
The Transmission Project
Flickr (their Mac Client is as nice as easy as the web service)
Adobe - yes, they are money grabbers but their software *rocks*, if you work in an industry that needs tools like that it's worth every cent.
Apple - a couple of people have beat up on them but I have far to much Apple software that I flat out love. OS X + Aperture + DSLR = amateur photographer happiness. iWork 08 is flat out cool. OS X itself is great. Bugs happen, so get over it.
TextDrive (for TextMate - OS X's new BBEdit)
Plasq (for Skitch)
Red Sweater Software (for MarsEdit)
mark/Space (for Missing Sync - *the* way to fly Windows Mobile from a Mac!)
Blacktree (for Quicksilver)
Adium
The Transmission Project
Flickr (their Mac Client is as nice as easy as the web service)
Adobe - yes, they are money grabbers but their software *rocks*, if you work in an industry that needs tools like that it's worth every cent.
Apple - a couple of people have beat up on them but I have far to much Apple software that I flat out love. OS X + Aperture + DSLR = amateur photographer happiness. iWork 08 is flat out cool. OS X itself is great. Bugs happen, so get over it.
Many PPCs (including G3s), perhaps. OS X, maybe, running even on G3s. Intels, not necessarily. I know of at least one such. Read not my lips, but my sig. I own nothing younger than six years old, despite that my wife has a G3/500, G3/600 and G4/1GHz.
Not everyone wants, let alone has, the latest.
de
I do have a very recent Intel Mac for my OS X needs, but also keep around an old G3 (clamshell) for OS 9 since I have Photoshop Elements for 9. I also have several 680x0s (the ones I use the most at present are a Plus, an SE, a IIci, a Q700, and three Classics) plus a big old 486.
If you NEED a latest system, then that's fine. Some of us do, for video editing or media production. Yes you can do that on a G3 or G4 but it will have you tearing your hair out.
The problem is when a word processor needs an 800mhz processor to run and 15 minutes to boot (Word 2004?), but has NO new or intensive features over the 1994 version that ran on a 486.
The problem is when a word processor needs an 800mhz processor to run and 15 minutes to boot (Word 2004?), but has NO new or intensive features over the 1994 version that ran on a 486.
You're running on a MacBook Pro? When it came out it was running on G4 and G5 PowerPCs. It ran well on some machines but it's still overkill for a word processor that had no real advantages over Office X.
Besides, it takes 15 minutes to load up on our Intel C2D iMacs, all 33 of them in the R37 Computer Lab.
Besides, it takes 15 minutes to load up on our Intel C2D iMacs, all 33 of them in the R37 Computer Lab.
Office 2004 takes forever to load on an Intel-based Mac because it's a rosetta app. in one photoshop test I ran, my G3/500 PowerBook "demolished" a 1.83GHz MBP, both systems had 512mb of ram. (The G3 got like 27 mins 30 seconds, the MBP got 29 minutes 30 seconds. Not the biggest difference ever, but the MBP was one year old, the G3 was six or seven.)
I use Bean on my iMac for text processing, and for anything really heavy, Office 2007 on my ThinkPad, it runs really fast.
[An actual post about software developers will come later tonight.]
I use Bean on my iMac for text processing, and for anything really heavy, Office 2007 on my ThinkPad, it runs really fast.
[An actual post about software developers will come later tonight.]
It's kinda silly to say that new word processors have nothing on their predecessors. After all, Microsoft and Corel and Apple do have to convince people to buy the new product. And they do have to convince people, since Office is rather expensive.
I think that it is fair to say that most new word processors have few new features that many people will use. The few new features that will see heavy use will be things that the user has no choice in, like the user interface cleanup of Office 2007 or the Intel code of the latest Mac version. Or worst, people will be roped into upgrading for interoperability: the reason why people use Word over WordPerfect is much the same reason why people will end up using Word 2007 over Word 2003. Of course there will be specialist features that some people will use a lot. For example: I would imagine that the new equation editor is better than the stripped down version of MathType that Microsoft shipped with Word in the past (how can it be worse). There will also be a bunch of features that people will use once or twice, either for genuine labour saving or just to justify their purchase of the upgrade.
Over all though, I'm left wondering: why can't we have different products targetted at different needs. A student doesn't need mail-merge, unless there is a major case of plagiarism going on; a novelist is unlikely to embed images; a secretary doesn't have time to play around with word art or borders; a child would probably be confused by by VBScripting (that, or program the most successful macro virus ever).
Meanwhile these "you have to own this end all and be all product because someone is going to send you a Word or Excel attachment that won't work properly in a competitor's product" products suck for some users. The last version of Office I used (2003) was more painful to use than LaTeX+awk+gnuplot (masochistic Unix applications) for scientific applications. Researchers are still stuck buying a third party bibliographic manager to compliment a product that includes the kitchen sink, but apparently lacks some fundamental writing tools. And screen-writing software seem to be a popular category, so I suppose Word fails there too.
So why can't people give up on bloatware and just get specialized and lean applications. (After all, consumers are a large part of the drive in the market.) That way you can save all of that RAM and all of those CPU cycles for the important things in life. Like watching YouTube (or, in my case, Annenberg videos).
I think that it is fair to say that most new word processors have few new features that many people will use. The few new features that will see heavy use will be things that the user has no choice in, like the user interface cleanup of Office 2007 or the Intel code of the latest Mac version. Or worst, people will be roped into upgrading for interoperability: the reason why people use Word over WordPerfect is much the same reason why people will end up using Word 2007 over Word 2003. Of course there will be specialist features that some people will use a lot. For example: I would imagine that the new equation editor is better than the stripped down version of MathType that Microsoft shipped with Word in the past (how can it be worse). There will also be a bunch of features that people will use once or twice, either for genuine labour saving or just to justify their purchase of the upgrade.
Over all though, I'm left wondering: why can't we have different products targetted at different needs. A student doesn't need mail-merge, unless there is a major case of plagiarism going on; a novelist is unlikely to embed images; a secretary doesn't have time to play around with word art or borders; a child would probably be confused by by VBScripting (that, or program the most successful macro virus ever).
Meanwhile these "you have to own this end all and be all product because someone is going to send you a Word or Excel attachment that won't work properly in a competitor's product" products suck for some users. The last version of Office I used (2003) was more painful to use than LaTeX+awk+gnuplot (masochistic Unix applications) for scientific applications. Researchers are still stuck buying a third party bibliographic manager to compliment a product that includes the kitchen sink, but apparently lacks some fundamental writing tools. And screen-writing software seem to be a popular category, so I suppose Word fails there too.
So why can't people give up on bloatware and just get specialized and lean applications. (After all, consumers are a large part of the drive in the market.) That way you can save all of that RAM and all of those CPU cycles for the important things in life. Like watching YouTube (or, in my case, Annenberg videos).
On the specific note of fundamental writing tools, Word 2007 now features (rather prominently, I discovered it within about an hour of non-directed playing with Word 2007) citation and bibliography management tools.
Right now, I've got to admit that I'm pretty happy with Microsoft. They offer really deep discounts for Students. Office 2007 is about $60 right now from theultimatesteal.com, and students can get Microsoft's developer tools and a copy of Server 2003 for free, which is pretty awesome. Plus, I've got to admit, Windows Vista kind of rocks. I've had it on the ThinkPad since September and it's been just about rock solid. I really don't need to (but probably will) reformat it. Even then, I'm waiting until summer, just so I can back everything up and do a proper job of it all.
Unfortunately, I really dislike to add dislike to threads like this, but I've got to admit, I'm really unhappy with Adobe right now. I've recently discovered that Bridge CS3 works almost infinitely better on Windows than it does on my Mac.
The Adobe thing is more of a personal complaint than anything else -- It's mainly the fact that I've now got no Mac-only apps, and the one app I expected to be awesome on my Mac, runs better on my cheap impulse-buy PC laptop than it does on my relatively high-spec iMac, and the nice iMacs at the School of Comm.
Right now, I've got to admit that I'm pretty happy with Microsoft. They offer really deep discounts for Students. Office 2007 is about $60 right now from theultimatesteal.com, and students can get Microsoft's developer tools and a copy of Server 2003 for free, which is pretty awesome. Plus, I've got to admit, Windows Vista kind of rocks. I've had it on the ThinkPad since September and it's been just about rock solid. I really don't need to (but probably will) reformat it. Even then, I'm waiting until summer, just so I can back everything up and do a proper job of it all.
Unfortunately, I really dislike to add dislike to threads like this, but I've got to admit, I'm really unhappy with Adobe right now. I've recently discovered that Bridge CS3 works almost infinitely better on Windows than it does on my Mac.
The Adobe thing is more of a personal complaint than anything else -- It's mainly the fact that I've now got no Mac-only apps, and the one app I expected to be awesome on my Mac, runs better on my cheap impulse-buy PC laptop than it does on my relatively high-spec iMac, and the nice iMacs at the School of Comm.